In November 2010, WikiLeaks collaborated with major global media organisations to release
U.S. State Department diplomatic "cables"
in redacted format. On 1 September 2011, it became public that an encrypted version of WikiLeaks' huge archive of unredacted U.S. State Department cables had been available via BitTorrent
for months and that the decryption key
(similar to a password) was available to those who knew where to find it. WikiLeaks blamed the breach on its former publication partner, the UK newspaper The Guardian, and that newspaper's journalist
David Leigh, who revealed the key in a book published in February 2011.[19]The Guardian
argued that WikiLeaks was to blame since they had given the impression that the encrypted file was temporary, taking it offline seven months before the book was published.[20]
The German periodical Der Spiegel
reported a more complex story[21]
involving errors on both sides. The incident resulted in widely expressed fears that the information released could endanger people, but investigations failed to identify anyone who had been harmed.[22][23]

History

Founding

Julian Assange
was one of the early members of the WikiLeaks staff and is credited as the website's founder.

The wikileaks.org domain name was registered on 4 October 2006.[5]
The website was established and published its first document in December 2006.[24][25]
WikiLeaks has been predominantly represented in public since January 2007 by Julian Assange, who is now generally recognised as the "founder of WikiLeaks".[26]
According to the magazine Wired, a volunteer said that Assange described himself in a private conversation as "the heart and soul of this organisation, its founder, philosopher, spokesperson, original coder, organiser, financier, and all the rest".[27]

WikiLeaks relies to some degree on volunteers and previously described its founders as a mixture of
Asian
dissidents, journalists, mathematicians, and start-up company technologists from the United States,
Taiwan,
Europe,
Australia, and
South Africa,[28]
but has progressively adopted a more traditional publication model and no longer accepts either user comments or edits. As of June 2009[update], the website had more than 1,200 registered volunteers[28]
and listed an advisory board comprising Assange, his deputy Jash Vora and seven other people, some of whom denied any association with the organisation.[29][30]

Name

Despite using the name "WikiLeaks", the website has not used the "wiki" publication method since May 2010.[31]
Also, despite some popular confusion[32]
due to both having "wiki" in their names, WikiLeaks and Wikipedia
are not affiliated with each other ("wiki" is not a brand name);[33][34]Wikia, a
for-profit corporation
affiliated loosely with the Wikimedia Foundation, did purchase several WikiLeaks-related domain names (including wikileaks.com and wikileaks.net) as a "protective brand measure" in 2007.[35]

Purpose

According to the WikiLeaks website, its goal is "to bring important news and information to the public... One of our most important activities is to publish original source material alongside our news stories so readers and historians alike can see evidence of the truth."

Another of the organisation's goals is to ensure that journalists and
whistleblowers
are not prosecuted for emailing sensitive or classified documents. The online "drop box" is described by the WikiLeaks website as "an innovative, secure and anonymous way for sources to leak information to [WikiLeaks] journalists".[36]

In an interview as part of the American television program
The Colbert Report, Assange discussed the limit to the freedom of speech, saying, "[it is] not an ultimate freedom, however free speech is what regulates government and regulates law. That is why in the
US Constitution
the Bill of Rights says that Congress is to make no such law abridging the freedom of the press. It is to take the rights of the press outside the rights of the law because those rights are superior to the law because in fact they create the law. Every constitution, every bit of legislation is derived from the flow of information. Similarly every government is elected as a result of people understanding things".[37]

The project has been compared to
Daniel Ellsberg's revelation of the "Pentagon Papers" (US war-related secrets) in 1971.[38]
In the United States, the "leaking" of some documents may be legally protected. The U.S. Supreme Court
has ruled that the Constitution
guarantees anonymity, at least in the context of political discourse.[38]
Author and journalist Whitley Strieber
has spoken about the benefits of the WikiLeaks project, noting that "Leaking a government document can mean jail, but jail sentences for this can be fairly short. However, there are many places where it means long incarceration or even death, such as China and parts of Africa and the Middle East."[39]

Some describe Wikileaks as a media or journalistic organization. For example, in a 2013 resolution, the
International Federation of Journalists, a trade union of journalists, called Wikileaks a "new breed of media organisation" that "offers important opportunities for media organisations."[40]Harvard
professor Yochai Benkler
has praised WikiLeaks as a new form of journalistic enterprise,[41]
testifying at the court-martial of Bradley Manning that "WikiLeaks did serve a particular journalistic function" although "It's a hard line to draw."[42]
Other do not consider WikiLeaks to be journalistic in nature. Media ethicist Kelly McBride of the Poynter Institute for Media Studies
writes that "Wikileaks might grow into a journalist endeavor. But it's not there yet."[43]Bill Keller
of the New York Times
considers WikiLeaks to be a "complicated source" rather than a journalistic partner.[43]
Prominent First Amendment lawyer Floyd Abrams
writes that Wikileaks is not a journalistic group, but instead "an organization of political activists; ... a source for journalists; and ... a conduit of leaked information to the press and the public." [44]
Noting Assange's statements that he and his colleagues read only a small fraction of information before deciding to publish it, Abrams writes that "No journalistic entity I have ever heard of--none--simply releases to the world an elephantine amount of material it has not read."[44]

Administration

According to a January 2010 interview, the WikiLeaks team then consisted of five people working full-time and about 800 people who worked occasionally, none of whom were compensated.[45]
WikiLeaks does not have any official headquarters. In November 2010 the WikiLeaks-endorsed[46]
news and activism site WikiLeaks Central was initiated and was administrated by editor Heather Marsh
who oversaw 70+ writers and volunteers.[47]
She resigned as editor in chief, administrator and domain holder of WikiLeaks Central on 8 March 2012.[48]

Until August 2010, WikiLeaks was hosted by
PRQ, a Sweden-based company providing "highly secure, no-questions-asked hosting services". PRQ is said to have "almost no information about its clientele and maintains few if any of its own
logs".[52]
Currently, WikiLeaks is hosted mainly by the Swedish internet service provider Bahnhof
in the Pionen
facility, a former nuclear bunker in Sweden.[53][54]
Other servers are spread around the world with the main server located in Sweden.[55]
Julian Assange has said that the servers are located in Sweden (and the other countries) "specifically because those nations offer legal protection to the disclosures made on the site". He talks about the Swedish constitution, which gives the information providers total legal protection.[55]
It is forbidden according to Swedish law for any administrative authority to make inquiries about the sources of any type of newspaper.[56]
These laws, and the hosting by PRQ, make it difficult for any authorities to eliminate WikiLeaks; they place an onus of proof upon any complainant whose suit would circumscribe WikiLeaks' liberty, e.g. its rights to exercise free speech online. Furthermore, "WikiLeaks maintains its own servers at undisclosed locations, keeps no logs and uses military-grade encryption
to protect sources and other confidential information." Such arrangements have been called "bulletproof hosting".[52][57]

In August 2010, the Swedish
Pirate Party
announced it would be hosting, managing, and maintaining many of WikiLeaks' new servers without charge.[58][59]

After the site became the target of a
denial-of-service attack
on its old servers, WikiLeaks moved its website to Amazon.com's servers.[60]
Later, however, the website was "ousted" from the Amazon servers.[60]
In a public statement, Amazon said that WikiLeaks was not following its terms of service. The company further explained, "There were several parts they were violating. For example, our terms of service state that 'you represent and warrant that you own or otherwise control all of the rights to the content... that use of the content you supply does not violate this policy and will not cause injury to any person or entity.' It's clear that WikiLeaks doesn't own or otherwise control all the rights to this classified content."[61]
WikiLeaks was then moved to servers at OVH, a private web-hosting service in France.[62]
After criticism from the French government, the company sought two court rulings about the legality of hosting WikiLeaks. While the court in Lille
immediately refused to force OVH to deactivate the WikiLeaks website, the court in Paris stated it would need more time to examine the complex technical issue.[63][64]

Do not use PGP to contact us. We have found that people use it in a dangerous manner. Further one of the Wikileaks key on several key servers is FAKE.

To preserve anonymity, WikiLeaks staff uses software like
Tor[65]
and PGP,[66]
for communication. PGP may no longer be used though because in November 2007[67]
the published PGP key expired. WikiLeaks warned against fake PGP keys on keyservers[68]
and proposed as an alternative using a SSL-encryptedchat.[69]

WikiLeaks was implemented on
MediaWiki
software between 2006 and October 2010.[70]
WikiLeaks strongly encouraged postings via Tor
because of the strong privacy needs of its users.[71]

On 4 November 2010, Julian Assange told Swiss public television organisation –
Télévision Suisse Romande
(TSR) that he is seriously considering seeking political asylum
in neutral Switzerland
and establishing a WikiLeaks foundation to move the operation there.[72][73]
According to Assange at the time, Switzerland and Iceland
were the only countries where WikiLeaks would be safe to operate.[74][75]

Domain name service

WikiLeaks had been using
EveryDNS's
domain name system
(DNS). Distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attacks against WikiLeaks hurt DNS quality of service for other EveryDNS customers; as a result, the company dropped WikiLeaks. Supporters of WikiLeaks waged verbal and DDoS attacks on EveryDNS. Because of a typographical error in
blogs
mistaking EveryDNS for competitor EasyDNS, that sizable internet backlash hit EasyDNS. Despite that, EasyDNS (upon request of a customer who was setting up new WikiLeaks hosting) began providing WikiLeaks with DNS service on "two 'battle hardened' servers" to protect quality of service for its other customers.[76]

Tor hidden service

Verification of submissions

WikiLeaks has contended that it has never released a misattributed document and that documents are assessed before release. In response to concerns about the possibility of misleading or fraudulent leaks, WikiLeaks has stated that misleading leaks "are already well-placed in the mainstream media. WikiLeaks is of no additional assistance."[79]
The FAQ states that: "The simplest and most effective countermeasure is a worldwide community of informed users and editors who can scrutinise and discuss leaked documents."[80]

According to statements by Assange in 2010, submitted documents are vetted by a group of five reviewers, with expertise in different topics such as language or
programming, who also investigate the background of the leaker if his or her identity is known.[81]
In that group, Assange has the final decision about the assessment of a document.[81]

Insurance files

On 29 July 2010 WikiLeaks added an "Insurance file" to the Afghan War Diary page. The file is
AES
encrypted.[82][83]
There has been speculation that it was intended to serve as insurance in case the WikiLeaks website or its spokesman Julian Assange are incapacitated, upon which the passphrase
could be published.[84][85]
After the first few days' release of the US diplomatic cables
starting 28 November 2010, the US television broadcasting company CBS
predicted that "If anything happens to Assange or the website, a key will go out to unlock the files. There would then be no way to stop the information from spreading like wildfire because so many people already have copies."[86]
CBS correspondent Declan McCullagh stated, "What most folks are speculating is that the insurance file contains unreleased information that would be especially embarrassing to the US government if it were released."[86]

On 22 February 2012, there was another insurance file release.[87][88]
The insurance files are not to be confused with another encrypted file containing diplomatic cables, the password of which has been compromised. The insurance files' passwords have not been compromised and their contents are still unknown.

On 17 August 2013, WikiLeaks released another three insurance files.[89]
Like previous insurance files, the contents of these three insurance files are still unknown.

On 3 June 2016, WikiLeaks released an 94.09 GiB AES-256 encrypted insurance file.[90][91]
Its size is sometimes reported as 87.6 GiB but its actual size is 94.09 GiB.[90]

Operational challenges

This section needs expansion
with: We need more info on such topic. You can help by
adding to it.(November 2014)

Assange has acknowledged that the practice of posting largely unfiltered classified information online could one day cause the website to have "blood on our hands".[25][92]
He said that the potential to save people from harm outweighs the danger to them.[93]
Furthermore, WikiLeaks has highlighted independent investigations which have failed to find any evidence of civilians harmed as a result of WikiLeaks' activities.[94][95]
A surveillance-resistant social network, Friends of WikiLeaks
(FoWL), was initiated by sympathisers with the organisation in May 2012 to perform advocacy.[96][97][98]

Legal status

Legal background

The legal status of WikiLeaks is complex. Assange considers WikiLeaks a protection intermediary. Rather than leaking directly to the press, and fearing exposure and retribution, whistleblowers can leak to WikiLeaks, which then leaks to the press for them.[99]
Its servers are located throughout Europe and are accessible from any uncensored web connection. The group located its headquarters in Sweden because it has one of the world's strongest laws to protect confidential source-journalist relationships.[100][101]
WikiLeaks has stated it does not solicit any information.[100]
However, Assange used his speech during the Hack In The Box conference in Malaysia to ask the crowd of hackers and security researchers to help find documents on its "Most Wanted Leaks of 2009" list.[102]

Potential criminal prosecution

The
U.S. Justice Department
began a criminal investigation of WikiLeaks and Julian Assange soon after the leak of diplomatic cables
began.[103][104]
Attorney General Eric Holder
affirmed the investigation was "not saber-rattling", but was "an active, ongoing criminal investigation".[104]The Washington Post
reported that the department was considering charges under the Espionage Act of 1917, an action which former prosecutors characterised as "difficult" because of
First Amendment
protections for the press.[103][105]
Several Supreme Court cases (e.g. Bartnicki v. Vopper) have established previously that the American Constitution protects the re-publication of illegally gained information provided the publishers did not themselves violate any laws in acquiring it.[106]
Federal prosecutors have also considered prosecuting Assange for trafficking in stolen government property, but since the diplomatic cables are intellectual rather than physical property, that method is also difficult.[107]
Any prosecution of Assange would require extraditing him to the United States, a procedure made more complicated and potentially delayed by any preceding extradition to Sweden.[108]
One of Assange's lawyers, however, says they are fighting extradition to Sweden because it might result in his extradition
to the United States.[109]
Assange's attorney, Mark Stephens, has "heard from Swedish authorities there has been a secretly empanelled grand jury in Alexandria [Virginia]" meeting to consider criminal charges for the WikiLeaks case.[110]

In Australia, the government and the
Australian Federal Police
have not stated what Australian laws may have been violated by WikiLeaks, but then Prime Minister Julia Gillard
has stated that the foundation of WikiLeaks and the stealing of classified documents from the US administration is illegal in foreign countries.[111]
Gillard later clarified her statement as referring to "the original theft of the material by a junior US serviceman rather than any action by Mr Assange."[112]
Spencer Zifcak, president of Liberty Victoria, an Australian civil liberties group, notes that without a charge or a trial completed, it is inappropriate to state that WikiLeaks is guilty of illegal activities.[113]

On threats by various governments towards Julian Assange, legal expert
Ben Saul
argues that Assange is the target of a global smear campaign to demonise him as a criminal or as a terrorist, without any legal basis.[114]
The U.S. Center for Constitutional Rights
has issued a statement emphasising its alarm at the "multiple examples of legal overreach and irregularities" in his arrest.[115]

Financing

WikiLeaks is a
not-for-profit organisation, funded largely by volunteers, and it is dependent on public donations. Its main financing methods include conventional
bank transfers
and online payment systems. Annual expenses have been estimated at about €200,000, mainly for servers and dealing with bureaucracy, but might reportedly become €600,000 if work currently done by volunteers were to become paid.[45]

WikiLeaks' lawyers often work pro bono, and in some cases legal aid has been donated by media organisations such as the
Associated Press, the
Los Angeles Times, and the
National Newspaper Publishers Association.[45]
WikiLeaks' only revenue consists of donations, but it has considered other options including auctioning early access to documents.[45]
During September 2011, WikiLeaks began auctioning items on eBay
to raise funds, and Assange told an audience at Sydney's Festival of Dangerous Ideas that the organisation might not be able to survive.[citation needed]

Funding model

The
Wau Holland Foundation
helps to process donations to WikiLeaks. In July 2010, the Foundation stated that WikiLeaks was not receiving any money for personnel costs, only for hardware, travelling and bandwidth.[116]
An article in TechEye
stated:

As a charity accountable under German law, donations for WikiLeaks can be made to the foundation. Funds are held in escrow and are given to WikiLeaks after the whistleblower website files an application containing a statement with proof of payment. The foundation does not pay any sort of salary nor give any renumeration [sic] to WikiLeaks' personnel, corroborating the statement of the site's former German representative Daniel Schmitt [real name
Daniel Domscheit-Berg][117]
on national television that all personnel works voluntarily, even its speakers.[116]

However, in December 2010 the
Wau Holland Foundation
stated that 4 permanent employees, including Julian Assange, had begun to receive salaries.[118]

In 2010, Assange said the organisation was registered as a library in Australia, a foundation in France, and a newspaper in Sweden, and that it also used two United States-based non-profit
501c3
organisations for funding purposes.[119]

On 24 December 2009, WikiLeaks announced that it was experiencing a shortage of funds[120]
and suspended all access to its website except for a form to submit new material.[121]
Material that was previously published was no longer available, although some could still be accessed on unofficial mirror websites.[122]
WikiLeaks stated on its website that it would resume full operation once the operational costs were paid.[121]
WikiLeaks saw this as a kind of work stoppage "to ensure that everyone who is involved stops normal work and actually spends time raising revenue".[45]
While the organisation initially planned for funds to be secured by 6 January 2010,[123]
it was not until 3 February 2010 that WikiLeaks announced that its minimum fundraising goal had been achieved.[124]

On 22 January 2010, the internet payment intermediary
PayPal
suspended WikiLeaks' donation account and froze its assets. WikiLeaks said that this had happened before, and was done for "no obvious reason".[125]
The account was restored on 25 January 2010.[126]
On 18 May 2010, WikiLeaks announced that its website and archive were operational again.[127]

In June 2010, WikiLeaks was a finalist for a grant of more than half a million dollars from the
John S. and James L. Knight Foundation,[25]
but did not make the final approval.[128]
WikiLeaks commented via Twitter, "WikiLeaks was highest rated project in the Knight challenge, strongly recommended to the board but gets no funding. Go figure."[129]
WikiLeaks said that the Knight foundation announced the award to "'12 Grantees who will impact future of news' – but not WikiLeaks" and questioned whether Knight foundation was "really looking for impact".[128]
A spokesman of the Knight Foundation disputed parts of WikiLeaks' statement, saying "WikiLeaks was not recommended by Knight staff to the board."[129]
However, he declined to say whether WikiLeaks was the project rated highest by the Knight advisory panel, which consists of non-staffers, among them journalist Jennifer 8. Lee, who has done PR work for WikiLeaks with the press and on social networking websites.[129]

During 2010, WikiLeaks received €635,772.73 in PayPal donations, less €30,000 in PayPal fees, and €695,925.46 in bank transfers. €500,988.89 of the sum was received in the month of December, primarily as bank transfers as PayPal suspended payments 4 December. €298,057.38 of the remainder was received in April.[130]

The
Wau Holland Foundation, one of the WikiLeaks' main funding channels, stated that they received more than €900,000 in public donations between October 2009 and December 2010, of which €370,000 has been passed on to WikiLeaks. Hendrik Fulda, vice president of the Wau Holland Foundation, mentioned that the Foundation had been receiving twice as many donations through
PayPal
as through normal banks, before PayPal's decision to suspend WikiLeaks' account. He also noted that every new WikiLeaks publication brought "a wave of support", and that donations were strongest in the weeks after WikiLeaks started publishing leaked diplomatic cables.[131][132]

The Icelandic judiciary decided that
Valitor
(a company related to Visa
and MasterCard) was violating the law when it prevented donation to the site by credit card. A justice ruled that the donations will be allowed to return to the site after 14 days or they would be fined in the amount of US$6,000 a day.[133]

In mid-February 2010, WikiLeaks received a leaked diplomatic cable from the US Embassy in Reykjavik relating to the
Icesave
scandal, which they published on 18 February.[168]
The cable, known as Reykjavik 13, was the first of the classified documents WikiLeaks published among those allegedly provided to them by US Army Private
Chelsea Manning
(then known as Bradley). In March 2010, WikiLeaks released a secret 32-page U.S. Department of Defense
Counterintelligence Analysis Report written in March 2008 discussing the leaking of material by WikiLeaks and how it could be deterred.[169][170][171]
In April, a classified video of the 12 July 2007 Baghdad airstrike
was released, showing two Reuters
employees being fired at, after the pilots mistakenly thought the men were carrying weapons, which were in fact cameras.[172]
After the mistaken killing, the video shows U.S. forces firing on a family van that stopped to pick up the bodies, constituting a war crime.[173]
In the week after the release, "wikileaks" was the search term with the most significant growth worldwide during the last seven days as measured by Google
Insights.[174]
In June 2010, Manning was arrested after alleged chat logs were given to US authorities by former hacker Adrian Lamo, in whom she had confided. Manning reportedly told Lamo she had leaked the
"Collateral Murder" video, in addition to a video of the
Granai airstrike
and about 260,000 diplomatic cables, to WikiLeaks.[175]

In July, WikiLeaks released
92,000 documents
related to the war in Afghanistan
between 2004 and the end of 2009 to the publications The Guardian,
The New York Times
and Der Spiegel. The documents detail individual incidents including "friendly fire" and civilian casualties.[176]
At the end of July, a 1.4 GB "insurance file" was added to the Afghan War Diary page, whose decryption details would be released if WikiLeaks or Assange were harmed.[84]
About 15,000 of the 92,000 documents have not yet been released by WikiLeaks, as the group is currently reviewing the documents to remove some of the sources of the information. WikiLeaks asked the Pentagon and human-rights groups to help remove names from the documents to reduce the potential harm caused by their release, but did not receive assistance.[177]
After the Love Parade stampede
in Duisburg, Germany, on 24 July 2010, a local resident published internal documents of the city administration regarding the planning of Love Parade. The city government reacted by securing a court order on 16 August forcing the removal of the documents from the website on which it was hosted.[178]
On 20 August 2010, WikiLeaks released a publication entitled Loveparade 2010 Duisburg planning documents, 2007–2010, which comprised 43 internal documents regarding the Love Parade 2010.[179][180]
After the leak of information concerning the Afghan War, in October 2010, around 400,000 documents
relating to the Iraq War
were released. The BBC quoted the US Dept. of Defense
referring to the Iraq War Logs as "the largest leak of classified documents in its history". Media coverage of the leaked documents emphasised claims that the U.S. government had ignored reports of torture
by the Iraqi authorities during the period after the 2003 war.[181]

Diplomatic cables release

On 28 November 2010, WikiLeaks and five major newspapers from Spain (El País), France (Le Monde), Germany (Der Spiegel), the United Kingdom (The Guardian), and the United States (The New York Times) started simultaneously to publish the first 220 of 251,287 leaked documents labelled confidential – but not top-secret – and dated from 28 December 1966 to 28 February 2010.[182][183]
WikiLeaks plans to release the entirety of the cables in phases over several months.[needs update][183]

2011–2015

In late April 2011, files related to the Guantanamo prison were released.[189]
In December 2011, WikiLeaks started to release the Spy Files.[190]
On 27 February 2012, WikiLeaks began publishing more than five million emails from the Texas-headquartered "global intelligence" company Stratfor.[191]

On 5 July 2012, WikiLeaks began publishing the
Syria Files, more than two million emails from Syrian political figures, ministries and associated companies, dating from August 2006 to March 2012.[192]

On Thursday, 25 October 2012, WikiLeaks began publishing
The Detainee Policies, more than 100 classified or otherwise restricted files from the United States Department of Defense covering the rules and procedures for detainees in U.S. military custody.[193]

In April 2013 WikiLeaks published more than 1.7 million U.S. diplomatic and intelligence documents from the 1970s. These documents included the
Kissinger cables.[194]

In September 2013
Dagens Næringsliv
said that WikiLeaks, on the previous evening, had published on its website "the whereabouts of 20 chiefs of European surveillance technology
companies, during the last year".[195]
This was part of WikiLeaks Spy Files 3
project, which was a release of close to[195]
250 documents from more than 90 surveillance companies.

On 10 June 2015, WikiLeaks published the complete draft on the
Trans-Pacific Partnership's
Transparency for Healthcare Annex, along with each country's negotiating position. According to the Sydney Morning Herald, the text of the agreement regulates state schemes for medicines and medical devices and gives big multinational pharmaceutical companies more information and control over national decisions about the health sector.[198]

On 19 June 2015 WikiLeaks began publishing The Saudi Cables: more than half a million cables and other documents from the Saudi Foreign Ministry that contain secret communications from various Saudi Embassies around the world.[199]

On 23 June 2015, WikiLeaks published documents under the name of "Espionnage Élysée", which showed that NSA spied on
French
government, including but not limited to the current President Francois Hollande
and his predecessors Nicolas Sarkozy
and Jacques Chirac.[200]
Oh 29 June 2015, WikiLeaks published more NSA top secrets intercepts regarding France, detailing an economic espionage against French companies and associations.[201]

In July 2015, WikiLeaks published documents which showed that the NSA had tapped the telephones of many
German
federal ministries, including that of the Chancellor Angela Merkel, for years since the 1990s.[202]

On 4 July 2015, WikiLeaks published documents which showed that 29
Brazilian
government numbers were selected for secret espionage by the NSA. Among the targets there were also the President Dilma Rousseff, many assistants and advisors, her presidential jet and other key figures in the Brazilian government.[203]

On 29 July 2015, WikiLeaks published a top secret letter from the
Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement
(TPP) Ministerial Meeting in December 2013 which illustrated the position of negotiating countries on "state-owned enterprises" (SOEs), and the set of restrictions and regulations against them, aiming to favour the transnational corporations.[204]

On 31 July 2015, WikiLeaks published secret intercepts and the related target list showing that the NSA spied on
Japanese
government, including the Cabinet and Japanese companies such as Mitsubishi
and Mitsui. The documents revealed that
US
espionage against Japan concerned broad sections of communications about the US-Japan diplomatic relationship and Japan's position on climate change issues, other than an extensive monitoring of the Japanese economy.[205]

On 21 October 2015 WikiLeaks published some of
John O. Brennan's emails, including a draft security clearance application which contained personal information.[206]

On 19 July 2016, WikiLeaks released 294,548 emails from Turkey's ruling
Justice and Development party
(AKP).[209]
According to WikiLeaks, the material, which they claim to be the first batch from the "AKP Emails", was obtained a week before the attempted coup in the country
and "is not connected, in any way, to the elements behind the attempted coup, or to a rival political party or state".[210]
After WikiLeaks announced that they would release the emails, the organisation stayed for over 24 hours under a "sustained attack".[211][212]
Following the leak, the Turkish government ordered the site to be blocked nationwide.[213][214][215][216]
The leak included no emails from Erdogan or his inner circle, but did contain, among other sensitive data, spreadsheets with private information of nearly every female voter in Turkey, including for many their Turkish Identification Number.[217]
This information was not in the files uploaded directly by WikiLeaks, but was in a link that they sent out to their followers on social media.[218][219]

On 7 October 2016, WikiLeaks started releasing series of emails and documents sent from or received by Hillary Clinton campaign manager
John Podesta, including Hillary Clinton's paid speeches to banks.[224][225][226][227]
According to a spokesman for the Clinton campaign, "By dribbling these out every day WikiLeaks is proving they are nothing but a propaganda arm of the Kremlin with a political agenda doing Putin's dirty work to help elect
Donald Trump."[228]The New York Times
reported that when asked, president Vladimir Putin replied that Russia was being falsely accused. "The hysteria is merely caused by the fact that somebody needs to divert the attention of the American people from the essence of what was exposed by the hackers."[229][230]

On 17 October 2016 WikiLeaks announced that a "state party" had severed the internet connection of
Julian Assange
at the Ecuadorian embassy. WikiLeaks blamed United States Secretary of StateJohn Kerry
of pressuring the Ecuadorian government in severing Assange's internet, an accusation which the United States State Department
denied.[231]
The Ecuadorian government stated that it had "temporarily" severed Assange's internet connection because of WikiLeaks' release of documents "impacting on the U.S. election campaign," although it also stated that this was not meant to prevent WikiLeaks from operating.[232]

Announcements of upcoming leaks

In May 2010, WikiLeaks said it had video footage of a massacre of civilians in Afghanistan by the US military which they were preparing to release.[233][234]

In an interview with
Chris Anderson
on 19 July 2010, Assange showed a document WikiLeaks had on an Albanian oil-well blowout, and said they also had material from inside British Petroleum,[235]
and that they were "getting enormous quantity of whistle-blower disclosures of a very high calibre" but added that they had not been able to verify and release the material because they did not have enough volunteer journalists.[236]

In October 2010, Assange told a major Moscow newspaper that "The Kremlin had better brace itself for a coming wave of WikiLeaks disclosures about Russia".[237][238]
Assange later clarified: "we have material on many businesses and governments, including in Russia. It's not right to say there's going to be a particular focus on Russia".[239]

In a 2009 interview by the magazine
Computerworld, Assange claimed to be in possession of "5GB from
Bank of America". In 2010, he told
Forbes
magazine that WikiLeaks was planning another "megaleak" early in 2011, from the private sector, involving "a big U.S. bank" and revealing an "ecosystem of corruption". Bank of America's stock price decreased by 3%, apparently as a result of this announcement.[240][241]
Assange commented on the possible effect of the release that "it could take down a bank or two".[242][243]
In August 2011, Reuters
announced that Daniel Domscheit-Berg
had destroyed approximately 5GB of data cache from Bank of America, that Assange had under his control.[244]

In December 2010, Assange's lawyer,
Mark Stephens, told
The Andrew Marr Show
on BBC Television that WikiLeaks had information it considered to be a "thermo-nuclear device" which it would release if the organisation needs to defend itself against the authorities.[245]

In January 2011,
Rudolf Elmer, a former Swiss banker, passed data containing account details of 2,000 prominent people to Assange, who stated that the information will be vetted before being made publicly available at a later date.[246]

Authenticity

Columnist
Eric Zorn
wrote in 2016 that "it's possible, even likely, that every stolen email WikiLeaks has posted has been authentic."[247]
(Writer Glenn Greenwald
goes further, asserting that WikiLeaks has a "perfect, long-standing record of only publishing authentic documents."[248]) However, cybersecurity experts agree that it is trivially easy for a person to fabricate an email or alter it, as by changing headers and metadata.[247]
Some of the more recent releases, such as many of the emails contained in the Podesta emails, contain DKIM
headers. This allows them to be verified as genuine to some degree of certainty.[249]

In July 2016, the
Aspen Institute's Homeland Security Group, a bipartisan counterterrorism organization, warned that hackers who stole authentic data might "salt the files they release with plausible forgeries."[247]
Russian intelligence agencies have frequently used disinformation
tactics, "which means carefully faked emails might be included in the WikiLeaks dumps. After all, the best way to make false information believable is to mix it in with true information."[250]

Other activities

A truck bearing a slogan and WikiLeaks logo as a prop at the Occupy Wall Street
protest in New York on 25 September 2011

In 2013, the organisation assisted
Edward Snowden
(who is responsible for the 2013 mass surveillance disclosures) in leaving
Hong Kong.
Sarah Harrison, a WikiLeaks activist, accompanied Snowden on the flight. Scott Shane of
The New York Times
stated that the WikiLeaks involvement "shows that despite its shoestring staff, limited fund-raising from a boycott by major financial firms, and defections prompted by Mr. Assange's personal troubles and abrasive style, it remains a force to be reckoned with on the global stage."[251]

Controversially, WikiLeaks announced a reward of an additional $20,000 for information leading to a conviction regarding the
death of Seth Rich.[252]
The death of Seth Rich
is an item of fascination among right-wing conspiracy theorists who believe that Rich was murdered by the DNC; there are reports that the Wikileaks reward is an attempt to fuel this conspiracy theory.[252][253][254]

Internal conflicts

Restructuring

WikiLeaks restructured its process for contributions after its first document leaks did not gain much attention. Assange stated this was part of an attempt to take the voluntary efforts typically seen in "Wiki" projects, and "redirect it to...material that has real potential for change."[255]
Some sympathisers were unhappy[citation needed]
when WikiLeaks ended a community-based wiki
format in favour of a more centralised organisation. The "about" page originally read:[256]

To the user, WikiLeaks will look very much like Wikipedia. Anybody can post to it, anybody can edit it. No technical knowledge is required. Leakers can post documents anonymously and untraceably. Users can publicly discuss documents and analyze their credibility and veracity. Users can discuss interpretations and context and collaboratively formulate collective publications. Users can read and write explanatory articles on leaks along with background material and context. The political relevance of documents and their verisimilitude will be revealed by a cast of thousands.

However, WikiLeaks established an editorial policy that accepted only documents that were "of political, diplomatic, historical or ethical interest" (and excluded "material that is already publicly available").[257]
This coincided with early criticism that having no editorial policy would drive out good material with spam and promote "automated or indiscriminate publication of confidential records".[258]
The original FAQ is no longer in effect, and no one can post or edit documents on WikiLeaks. Now, submissions to WikiLeaks are reviewed by anonymous WikiLeaks reviewers, and documents that do not meet the editorial criteria are rejected. By 2008, the revised FAQ stated that "Anybody can post comments to it. [...] Users can publicly discuss documents and analyse their credibility and veracity."[259]
After the 2010 reorganisation, posting new comments on leaks was no longer possible.[31]

Defections

Within WikiLeaks, there has been public disagreement between founder and spokesperson
Julian Assange
and Daniel Domscheit-Berg, the website's former German representative who was suspended by Assange. Domscheit-Berg announced on 28 September 2010 that he was leaving the organisation due to internal conflicts over management of the website.[117][260][261]

Julian Assange (left) with Daniel Domscheit-Berg. Domscheit-Berg was ejected from WikiLeaks and started a rival "whistleblower" organisation named OpenLeaks.

On 25 September 2010, after being suspended by Assange for "disloyalty, insubordination and destabilization", Daniel Domscheit-Berg, the German spokesman for WikiLeaks, told
Der Spiegel
that he was resigning, saying "WikiLeaks has a structural problem. I no longer want to take responsibility for it, and that's why I am leaving the project."[262][263][264]
Assange accused Domscheit-Berg of leaking information to Newsweek, claiming the WikiLeaks team was unhappy with Assange's management and handling of the
Afghan war
document releases.[264]
Daniel Domscheit-Berg wanted greater transparency in the articles released to the public. Another vision of his was to focus on providing technology that allowed whistle-blowers to protect their identity as well as a more transparent way of communicating with the media, forming new partnerships and involving new people.[265]
Domscheit-Berg left with a small group to start OpenLeaks, a new leak organisation and website with a different management and distribution philosophy.[262][266]

While leaving, Daniel Domscheit-Berg copied and then deleted roughly 3,500 unpublished documents from the WikiLeaks servers,[267]
including information on the US government's 'no-fly list' and inside information from 20 right-wing organisations, and according to a WikiLeaks statement, 5 gigabytes of data relating to Bank of America, the internal communications of 20 neo-Nazi organisations and US intercept information for "over a hundred internet companies".[268]
In Domscheit-Berg's book he wrote: "To this day, we are waiting for Julian to restore security, so that we can return the material to him, which was on the submission platform."[269]
In August 2011, Domscheit-Berg claims he permanently deleted the files "in order to ensure that the sources are not compromised."[270]

Herbert Snorrason, a 25-year-old Icelandic university student, resigned after he challenged Assange on his decision to suspend Domscheit-Berg and was bluntly rebuked.[264]
Iceland MP Birgitta Jónsdóttir
also left WikiLeaks, citing lack of transparency, lack of structure, and poor communication flow in the organisation.[271]
According to the periodical The Independent
(London), at least a dozen key supporters of WikiLeaks left the website during 2010.[272]

Non-disclosure agreements

Those working for Wikileaks are reportedly required to sign sweeping non-disclosure agreements covering all conversations, conduct, and material, with Assange having sole power over disclosure.[273]
The penalty for non-compliance in one such agreement was reportedly £12 million.[273]
Wikileaks has been challenged for this practice, as it seen to be hypocritical for an organization dedicated to transparency to limit the transparency of its inner workings and limit the accountability of powerful individuals in the organization.[273][274][275]

Reception

WikiLeaks has received praise as well as criticism. The organisation has won a number of awards, including
The Economist's
New Media Award in 2008 at the Index on Censorship Awards[276]
and Amnesty International's UK Media Award in 2009.[277][278]
In 2010, the New York Daily News
listed WikiLeaks first among websites "that could totally change the news,"[279]
and Julian Assange received the Sam Adams Award[280]
and was named the Readers' Choice for TIME's Person of the Year
in 2010.[281]
The UK Information Commissioner
has stated that "WikiLeaks is part of the phenomenon of the online, empowered citizen."[282]
During its first days, an Internet petition
in support of WikiLeaks attracted more than six hundred thousand signatures.[283]
Sympathisers of WikiLeaks in the media and academia have commended it for exposing state and corporate secrets, increasing transparency, assisting freedom of the press, and enhancing democratic discourse while challenging powerful institutions.[284][285][286][287][288][289][290]

At the same time, several U.S. government officials have criticised WikiLeaks for exposing classified information and claimed that the leaks harm national security and compromise
international diplomacy.[291][292][293][294][295]
Several human rights organisations requested with respect to earlier document releases that WikiLeaks adequately redact the names of civilians working with international forces, in order to prevent repercussions.[296]
Some journalists have likewise criticised a perceived lack of editorial discretion when releasing thousands of documents at once and without sufficient analysis.[297]
In 2016, Harvard law professor and Electronic Frontier Foundation
board member Jonathan Zittrain
argued that a culture in which one constantly risks being "outed" as a result of virtual Watergate-like break-ins (or 4th amendment violations) could lead people to hesitate to speak their minds.[298]

Allegations of anti-Americanism and partisanship

Short of simply disclosing information in the public interest, Wikileaks has been accused of purposely targeting certain states and people, and presenting its disclosures in misleading and conspiratorial ways to harm those people.[302]
Writing in 2012, Foreign Policy's Joshua Keating noted that "nearly all its major operations have targeted the U.S. government or American corporations."[303]
In the 2016 U.S. presidential election, Assange only exposed material damaging to the Democratic National Committee and Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.

Criticism of Wikileaks' promotion of conspiracy theories

Wikileaks also repeatedly promoted false and unsubstantiated conspiracies about the Democratic Party and Hillary Clinton, such as suggesting that Clinton campaign chairperson John Podesta engaged in satanic rituals,[302][304][305]
implying that the Democratic Party had Seth Rich
killed,[306]
suggesting that Clinton wore earpieces to debates and interviews,[307]
claiming that Hillary Clinton wanted to drone strike Assange,[308]
and promoting a conspiracy theory from a Donald Trump-related internet community tying the Clinton campaign to child kidnapper Laura Silsby.[309]
According to Harvard political scientist Matthew Baum and College of the Canyons political scientist Phil Gussin, Wikileaks strategically released e-mails related to the Clinton campaign whenever Clinton's lead expanded in the polls.[310]

Allegations of Russian influence

In August 2016, after Wikileaks published thousands of DNC emails, it was claimed that Russian intelligence had hacked the e-mails and leaked them to Wikileaks. At the time, DNC officials made such claims, along with a number of cybersecurity experts and cybersecurity firms.[316][317]
In October 2016, the U.S. intelligence community announced that it was "confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of e-mails from US persons and institutions, including from US political organizations".[318]
The U.S. intelligence agencies said that the hacks were consistent with the methods of Russian-directed efforts, and that people high up within the Kremlin were likely involved.[318]
On 14 October 2016, CNN
reported that "there is mounting evidence that the Russian government is supplying WikiLeaks with hacked emails pertaining to the US presidential election."[319]
WikiLeaks has denied any connection to or cooperation with Russia.[319]
President Putin has strongly denied any Russian involvement.[229][230]

In September 2016, the German weekly magazine
Focus
reported that according to a confidential German government dossier, WikiLeaks had long since been infiltrated by Russian agents aiming to discredit NATO
governments. The magazine added that French and British intelligence services had come to the same conclusion and said Russian President Vladimir Putin
and Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev
receive details about what WikiLeaks publishes before publication.[320][321]
The Focus
report followed a New York Times
story that suggested that WikiLeaks may be a laundering machine for compromising material about Western countries gathered by Russian spies.[322]

Allegations of anti-semitism

Wikileaks has been accused of anti-semitism.[323][324][325][326]
The Wikileaks Twitter account tweeted anti-semitic jibes.[325][326]
The organization has called out Jewish "lobbies" and claimed that a "Jewish conspiracy" is attempting to discredit the organization.[323][327]
In July 2016, Wikileaks suggested that the parentheses bracketing, or (((echoes))) — a tool used by neo-Nazis to identify Jews on Twitter, appropriated by Jews across the Twittersphere — had been used as a way for "establishment climbers" to identify one another.[324][326]
Assange denied making claims of a Jewish conspiracy, stating, "'Jewish conspiracy' is completely false, in spirit and in word. It is serious and upsetting.”[323]

Inadequate curation and violations of personal privacy

In July 2016,
Edward Snowden
criticized Wikileaks for insufficiently curating its content.[328]
When Snowden made data public, he did so by working with the Washington Post, the Guardian and other news organizations, chosing only to make documents public which exposed National Security Agency surveillance programs.[328]
Content that compromised national security or exposed sensitive personal information was withheld.[328]
Wikileaks, on the other hand, makes little effort to remove sensitive personal information or withhold content with adverse national security implications. Wikileaks responded by accusing Snowden of pandering to Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton.[328]

University of North Carolina Professor
Zeynep Tufekci
has criticized Wikileaks for exposing sensitive personal information: "WikiLeaks, for example, gleefully tweeted to its millions of followers that a Clinton Foundation employee had attempted suicide... Data dumps by WikiLeaks have outed rape victims and gay people in Saudi Arabia, private citizens’ emails and personal information in Turkey, and the voice mail messages of Democratic National Committee staff members."[329]
She argues these data dumps which violate personal privacy without being in the public interest "threaten our ability to dissent by destroying privacy and unleashing a glut of questionable information that functions, somewhat unexpectedly, as its own form of censorship, rather than as a way to illuminate the maneuverings of the powerful."[329]

Spin-offs

Release of US diplomatic cables was followed by the creation of a number of other organisations based on the WikiLeaks model.[330]

OpenLeaks
was created by a former WikiLeaks spokesperson. Daniel Domscheit-Berg
said the intention was to be more transparent than WikiLeaks. OpenLeaks was supposed to start public operations in early 2011 but despite much media coverage, as of April 2013[update]
it is not operating.[needs update]

In December 2011, WikiLeaks launched
Friends of WikiLeaks, a social network for supporters and founders of the website.[331]

On 9 September 2013
[332]
a number of major Dutch media outlets supported the launch of Publeaks, which provides a secure website for people to leak documents to the media using the
GlobaLeaks
whistleblowing software.[333]

RuLeaks is aimed at being a Russian equivalent to WikiLeaks. It was initiated originally to provide translated versions of the WikiLeaks cables but the
Moscow Times
reports it has started to publish its own content as well.[334]

Leakymails is a project designed to obtain and publish relevant documents exposing corruption of the political class and the powerful in
Argentina.[335][336][337]

War, lies and videotape
is a documentary by French directors Paul Moreira
and Luc Hermann from press agency Premieres Lignes. The film was first released in France, in 2011 and then broadcast worldwide.[342]

Jump up
^"Submissions". WikiLeaks.
Archived
from the original on 15 July 2011. Retrieved
14 March
2012.
You can also use secure TOR network (secure, anonymous, distributed network for maximum security)

Jump up
^"Wikileaks / WL Central". WL Central.
Archived
from the original on 17 April 2012. Retrieved
14 March
2012.
Between 2006 and October 2010, Wikileaks site was based on an implementation of the Mediawiki software (hence the name, Wikileaks). In October the site was taken down, and when Wikileaks returned, the new site (above) replaced the Mediawiki site.

Jump up
^Robinson, Jennifer; Zifcak, Spencer; Saul, Ben (7 December 2010).
"Law experts say WikiLeaks in the clear".
The World Today
(Interview). Interview with Simon Lauder. ABC Radio
(Australia). Archived
from the original on 9 February 2014. Retrieved
12 December
2010.
There is no charge and there has been no trial and even given all of those things the Prime Minister had the confidence to say that Mr Assange was guilty of illegality. Now that seems to me to be completely inappropriate.